I don't think the warnings and pictures will get (many) people to quit smoking. The damaging effects don't show up for years, so smokers play mind games with themselves. If the health problems are not immediate, they will continue to puff away. The addiction and habit are too strong, especially for those who use the sorry excuse of "I'm stressed out!" like my boyfriend. He spent who-knows-how-much-money on those electric cigarettes, but STILL buys regular cigarettes and admitted to me it is because of the stress he has had his life, which is A LOT. I think for many it is psychological. They get nicotine from the eCigarettes, but something causes them to use the real thing. Having said that, I hope that thewarning pictures convince young people before they start, but peer pressure can be extremely hard to resist.

I never have tried and cigarette and have never had the desire. I find it to be a very nasty, smelly, wasteful, and selfish habit.....and yes, that is easy for me to say, since I have never used them. I grew up in a house with 2 parents and 2 siblings who smoked - I was the only non-smoker and hated that I smelled like smoke all the time. I like AKron's comment - why not put graphic pictures on fast food containers, alcohol bottles?? Why not? Because we won't pay attention and it is a waste of money and the government should be worrying about more important issues.

I have known personally of people who died of lung cancer...never smoked a day. I have known personally people who lived well into their 90s smoking like a Dupont factory. My half sister is 79 and on oxygen. She smokes like she has since she was 6 and worked in the tobacco fields.

Nice FDA link. It is a marvel that the tobacco lobbyists have not put a stop to this characterization of their product. I am still waiting for a less dramatic control to be instituted, namely a dose uniformity requirement for each cigarette in any given pack.

4. government gets support from tobacco companies for money for campaigning.

5. i cant think of any other reason

The only solution i.e. to ban Tobacco is never considered.

Does everything for the politicians is money?Graphic health warnings are just a bullshit way of saying that we are giving u an opportunity to commit suicide and kill others but we wont prevent you from doing either.

I think they're a great way to emphasize what smoking can do. Hopefully it would convince smokers or would-be smokers to either not smoke or at least to get an e-cigarette. Sadly though, I do know a few people who could give a damn that these sort of graphic warnings are on the boxes and continue to smoke.

Most people who get cigarettes that have ugly/annoying warnings on them have just switched to cigarette cases to hold their cigarettes.

The cases are usually silver or have flowers or something on them. They're very pretty. They make good wallets.

Basically smokers know cigarettes are bad for them--especially when they wake up each morning just to cough up a handful of phlegm into the sink. But Cigarettes are addictive. Really I think the best thing would be to invest more in healthcare for the people who do get cancer, and offer incentives to people who quit smoking, as well as secular help to quit so they don't have to do it alone.

"Is that a fucking bible?"

"Hey, it's a holy fucking bible."

I think people are adults, and they'll make decisions that harm them no matter what--but helping people who do want to quit, quit easier, will do more than scare tactics. The whole "lead a horse to water, can't make her drink" deal.

The Feds have backed down, after losing to tobacco companies in appeals court on free speech grounds:

The U.S. government is abandoning a legal battle to require that cigarette packs carry a set of large and often macabre warning labels depicting the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.

Instead, the Food and Drug Administration will go back to the drawing board and create labels to replace those that included images of diseased lungs and the sewn-up corpse of a smoker, according to a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder obtained by the Associated Press. The government had until Monday to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision upholding a ruling that the requirement violated First Amendment free speech protections.